That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God is the Body of Christ (corpus est Christi). That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ (sanguis est Christi). Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend his Body and Blood, which he poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. (Sermones 227, PL 38)
Christ was carried in his own hands [Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis] when, referring to his own Body, he said, 'This is my Body.’ For he carried that body in his hands [Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis]. (Enarrationes in Psalmos 33:1, 10, PL 36).
None of this is new, of course, but I'm starting to lose confidence with regard to Calvin's rejection of the local presence and in his treatment of the manducatio impiorum. I could use some help if anyone wants to set me straight.
1 comment:
It is worth remembering that Aquinas also rejected the local presence.
That said, I am more inclined to hold to a form of moderate transubstantiation than I am to hold Calvin's view now. I have a lot of sympathy for what Calvin is saying in some areas, but I see no reason why he needs to reject transubstantiation in order to make most of his points.
Post a Comment